Another J6 Trump ‘Bombshell’ Outed as a Hoax!

On Tuesday, the liberal media soiled themselves over the so-called bombshell story that on January 6, 2021, President Trump grabbed the steering wheel of the presidential limo and then lunged at a Secret Service agent because he wanted to join the protesters at the Capitol.

The story came courtesy of Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows.

“So when the president had gotten into the vehicle with [Secret Service agent] Bobby [Engel], he thought that they were going up to the Capitol. And when Bobby had relayed to him, ‘We’re not, we don’t have the assets to do it, it’s not secure, we’re going back to the West Wing,’ the president had a very strong and very angry response to that.

Tony described him as being irate. The president said to him something to the effect of, ‘I’m the f—ing president, take me up to the Capitol now.’ To which Bobby responded, ‘Sir, we have to go back to the West Wing.’ He then reached up front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. Mr. Engel grabbed his arm, he said, ‘Sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel. We’re going back to the West Wing, we’re not going to the Capitol.’ Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel.”

Any reasonable person would conclude this story was dubious. The liberal media, however, not so much. CNN gleefully described it as a bombshell, yet, like so many other Trump bombshells, it appears this incident didn’t happen at all, and is yet another hoax to add to the pile of bogus anti-Trump stories.

According to Peter Alexander, the chief White House correspondent for NBC News, sources close to the Secret Service dispute the story.

“A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel,” Alexander tweeted Tuesday evening.


Trump’s former acting director of national intelligence, Richard Grenell, slammed the committee for allowing this testimony to go unchallenged.

“So a junior staffer was pressured by @Liz_Cheney to lie under oath,” he tweeted. “Why wasn’t there a single committee member asking her if she had proof? This performance collapsed in an hour.”

“The DC media is corrupt and sick,” he concluded.


Soon after Alexander revealed that his sources challenged the story, Hutchinson’s lawyer, Jody Hunt, quickly attempted to walk back her testimony.

“Ms. Hutchinson testified, under oath, and recounted what she was told,” Hunt tweeted. “Those with knowledge of the episode also should testify under oath.”


How many more bogus bombshells are we going to get from these hearings?

The Liberal Media’s ‘Rising Stars’ Always Seem to Crash and Burn

Those who’ve been around more than five minutes know that the mainstream media is little more than a collection of homogeneous, biased hacks that do little more than support the Current Thing(TM) being pushed by Democrats and leftist activists.

It’s great for Democrats who enjoy uncritical coverage of their nonsense, but often outlets such as The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, et al. get a little too far out over their biased skis when they begin to fall in love with their latest object of obsessive attention.

Take a walk down memory lane with Townhall as we look at some of the mainstream media’s recent “rising stars” — who get treated as saviors — only to fall on their faces.

Continue reading “”

I’m An MD Suspended By Twitter For Tweeting A Link To A Scientific Article On COVID-19 Vaccine Lowering Sperm Counts
My suspension is yet another example of Twitter’s arbitrary, Lysenkoist breaches of informed public discourse on covid-19. The suspension must be reversed, and my account restored fully intact, immediately. Please take notice and intervene Elon Musk (@elonmusk).

I am a physician currently affiliated with the Brown University Center For Primary Care and Prevention, and was an Associate Professor of Medicine and Family Medicine at The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University from 1997 until June, 2021. My CV lists my many medical and scientific accomplishments.

Among other things, as a clinical trialist and epidemiologist, I designed and completed the largest randomized, controlled trial ever conducted in chronic kidney transplant recipients.  I have 115 scholarly, peer-reviewed publications focused on epidemiology and clinical trials. I have testified as an expert witness in lawsuits pertaining to the Covid-19 pandemic—specifically on vaccine and mask mandates—while researching and writing extensively on those subjects. I recently contributed to an amicus curiae brief to the United States Supreme Court for the covid-19 vaccine mandate case NFIB v. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, et al./Ohio v. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, et al. which was cited by the Washington Post .

Until this morning, I had a very active Twitter account with a large following through which I shared scientific information, as well as my personal views.

[Andrew Boston Twitter Banner As Of February 16, 2022]

 This morning (6/22/22) I awakened to learn that overnight Twitter had summarily and simultaneously locked, and then suspended my account for this “offending” tweet from Father’s Day, 6/19/22:

As of this writing, my Twitter account is suspended. I have received no response so far to my appeal.

The Journal Andrology is highly respected and published through a joint effort of American and European scientific associations:

The study was a straightforward, serial analysis of young male Israeli semen donors evaluating the potential impact of Pfizer’s covid-19 mRNA vaccine on their sperm concentration (count), and related functional measures, 15-45 [Time 1],75-120 [T2], and over 150 days after [T3] vaccination.”

What did the investigators find?

Again, quoting their publicationverbatim, based upon what the authors defineda priori, as the primary statistical analysis (i.e., “ [a] 1) generalized estimated equation model (GEE) was used for repeated measures analysis,” which is indeed the most appropriate method!):

 “sperm concentration was significantly lower due to decrease of -15.4% (confidence interval -25.5%–3.9%) compared to [Time zero/baseline] T0 (p=0.01). Moreover, [total motile count; how sperm moved] TMC percentage change reduction of 22.1% was significantly lower compared to T0 (confidence interval -35% – -6.6%, p=0.007) as well. Although concentration and TMC were reduced also on T3, these values did not reach statistical significance.”

If anything the text of my 6/19/22 tweet understated the evidence of a possible longer term, ~ 5-month follow-up decline, calling it a “rebound” when “concentration and TMC were reduced also on T3, [though] these values did not reach statistical significance.” In other words, the trend was toward a persistent decline, although it did not “reach statistical significance,” but may well have been evident, and “statistically significant,” merely by studying more subjects.

Finally, my offending tweet added the truthful observation that no data were presented on the effects of booster vaccinations, and asked whether boostering might cause another cycle of decline in the sperm counts and functional measures only studied in relation to the initial vaccination.

My suspension is yet another example of Twitter’s arbitrary, Lysenkoist breaches of informed public discourse on covid-19. The suspension must be reversed, and my account restored fully intact, immediately.

Please take notice and intervene Elon Musk (@elonmusk).

Everytown Calls for Censorship on How to Work on Firearms

This correspondent has repeatedly written the First and Second Amendments of the US Constitution are intertwined and support each other. A power-craving government cannot effectively keep a population disarmed unless it censors information on how to make and use arms.

Billionaire Bloomberg supported Everytown for Gun Safety understands they cannot disarm the population, as long as people are free to transmit information on how to make, modify, and use firearms.

Their solution is clear. Forbid the knowledge of how to make, repair, and use firearms. From

Based on our review of the writings by the shooter in the Buffalo mass shooting, it appears that he honed his knowledge of firearms and firearm modifications on YouTube. Just days before his attack, posts attributed to the shooter on Discord read, “I’ve just been sitting around watching youtube and **** for the last few days. I think this is the closest I’ll ever be to being ready. I literally can’t wait another week to do this.”

Technology platforms, such as YouTube, have a responsibility to users and the public-at-large to insure that posts do not incite violence or promote extremist content.

This correspondent, contrary to what Everytown posits, claims Technology platforms, such as YouTube, have a responsibility to users to protect and support their First Amendment rights of free expression.

Everytown admits they request that videos on how to modify guns be taken down. They say they have requested YouTube take down videos on how to make guns (which they call “ghost guns”).

YouTube has policies that censor some content on how to make or modify some guns and accessories.  From

YouTube’s firearms policy says users can’t post videos that show how to install certain gun accessories, including high-capacity magazines. In a statement on Friday, the company said the videos that the suspect allegedly used to modify his rifle don’t violate those policies.

It is more dangerous to people’s freedom to control the information they are allowed than to control their access to arms. Both are important. If the control over information is extensive enough, people will never attempt to use the arms they may have; they will consider themselves in the best of all possible situations, no matter how badly they are abused. This is the warning in George Orwell’s novel, 1984. It is even more difficult for the people to rise up if the abuse is carefully contrived and increasingly applied over generations, allowing the population to become accustomed to it.

Fortunately, the oligopoly of Big Tech’s control over information appears to be on the edge of collapse. Alternative platforms dedicated to free speech, such as Truth Social and Rumble, are becoming popular. Elon Musk may reform Twitter, from a means of directing cancel culture against its victims to a worldwide sanctuary for free speech.

In a famous case, the US government gave up attempts to restrict the publication of how to build a hydrogen bomb. The First Amendment clearly protects the publication of technology that is already in the public sphere.

What Everytown seeks to do is to convince the distributors of information to censor information it deems to be dangerous.

Everytown is unlikely to succeed.

In the Fifth Circuit, Defense Distributed’s lawsuit against New Jersey’s AG, Gurbir Grewal, was allowed to continue, on the grounds that Grewal violated Defense Distributed’s First Amendment rights when when he threatened to prosecute them for publishing computer code on how to print firearms parts.

It would be a short step for the newly proposed Bureau of Disinformation to censor information they deem “dangerous” to the public.

Unless the Progressive left succeeds in its Supreme Court-packing scheme, it is unlikely the Supreme Court would allow such an egregious violation of the First Amendment, when the inevitable court challenge is effectuated.

Everytown seems to agree with this quote, attributed to Stalin, but disputed:

Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?

One of the most important effects of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, is the physical embodiment and clear demonstration the power of the government has limits. There are things it is not allowed to do, by law. An openly armed man, in public, is a clear and present demonstration of a Constitutional limit on government.

Progressives hate the idea of limits on government with a passion. It is part of Progressive DNA.

Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, had a view the opposite of Stalin’s supposed quote. In a private letter, shortly before becoming president, he wrote this:

 “for I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”1

It is clear those who wish for a disarmed public are closer to Stalin’s philosophy than to Thomas Jefferson’s.

Author Stephen Hunter makes valid point about guns

Author Stephen Hunter is best known for his Bob Lee Swagger books. He was also a film critic for the Washington Post until he retired in 2008.

While he writes thrillers, his career might make you think he’s anti-gun.

Well, he’s apparently not. In fact, he made a very good point about guns and massacres.

Possibly you’re old enough to remember the great massacre spree of 1964? Classrooms shot up, strip malls decimated, scout troops blown away, fast food restaurants turned into mortuaries.

And all because, in its infinite stupidity, the U.S. government dumped 240,000 high-capacity .30 caliber assault rifles into an otherwise innocent America.

The weapons clearly had a demon-spirit to them. Compared to anything else in the market, they had that murder-most-easy look. One glance at the sinister gleam of the walnut stock which caressed the military-gray receiver and barrel of the weapon, its magazine wickedly boasting of many cartridges ready and waiting, its photo- and Hollywood associations with war, and some went screwball. They had the overwhelming desire to use it as it was meant to be used. It was not powerful enough for deer and not accurate enough for vermin. It existed only to kill human beings.

Except there was no massacre spree of 1964, despite the fact that in 1963 the United States Army surplussed 240,000 M1 carbines via the NRA. They were available through the mail at $20. Not an NRA member? Eighty bucks, then, from any sporting goods store. Denver’s Dave Cook’s–“Guns Galore at Prices to Score”– had them by mail order, magazine and sling included, postage, $1.25.

The M1 carbine was a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine that could fire pretty much as fast as an AR-15 and used a much larger round, from a pure diameter standpoint.

It was a recipe for disaster by today’s standard and yet, nothing. Not a single mass shooting with such weapons.

Hunter goes on to point out that in the summer of 1964, there were tons of inexpensive semi-automatic, magazine-fed rifles on the open market that could be mailed right to you, but there weren’t people like the Buffalo or Uvalde shooters.

It’s a very valid point and a great example of how the problem isn’t the availability of firearms. They were easier to acquire in 1964 than they are today and they were just as deadly. They could be discharged at a high rate of fire, too.

These were actual weapons of war, even, not something that just looks like one.

And yet, as Hunter notes, no massacres. No school shootings. None of the things we’re told result from “easy” access to firearms.

That suggests strongly that the problem here is something else, something else entirely. We, as a society, would be better off if we could stop blaming guns for five minutes and start looking deeper into why this is happening and why this continues to be an issue.

Yet that’s apparently not allowed by some in our world. They’ve got a vested interest in blaming the guns rather than in solving the actual problem.

Part of that, of course, is also blaming others for not agreeing that guns are the problem despite clear evidence that they’re not.

Breaking: Project Veritas Leaks Video From Twitter’s ‘All Hands’ Meeting With Elon Musk

In footage obtained by Project Veritas of Thursday’s meeting with Twitter employees, Elon Musk stressed the importance of having free speech on the platform he is in the process of purchasing.

The Latest Wave of New Firearm Owners Shreds Another Anti-Gun Narrative

First, I’m shocked NBC News would write a story like this about gun owners. Second, it’s about yet another hurdle anti-gunners have to scale when pushing their ‘take all the guns’ initiatives. This isn’t necessarily a new trend. Nonwhite Americans and women have flocked to gun shows and concealed carry permit classes. In fact, there are so many female concealed carry holders that they’re changing the industry. Female participation in shooting sports spiked during the Obama presidency. That alone is a problem for anti-gunners and Democrats. It’s never a good idea to go against what middle-class women like—that’s a long-established political reality. You’re gambling there.

Now, you have to factor in that the latest wave of new gun owners are black Americans—and you have to tread carefully about the silly talking points about gun ownership and the Second Amendment (via NBC News):

Two days after a white man shot and killed 10 Black people in Buffalo last month, Michael Moody reversed his thinking about possessing a firearm. He had watched the aftermath of the carnage on the news, the anguish of the victims’ families, and decided he “needed a gun. Needed, not wanted,” he said……

Moody’s sentiments represent one reason the sale of guns to Black Americans rose 58 percent in 2020 — the year George Floyd was murdered by a Minnesota police officer, sparking a nationwide social justice movement — according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a firearms trade association. It was the highest bump in gun sales of any ethnic group that year.

Further, in the first quarter of 2021, another NSSF report revealed 90 percent of gun retailers reported a general increase of Black customers, including an 87 percent increase among Black women.

“And you wonder why?” said Moody, who works for the federal government. “You look at Buffalo and the feeling of ‘This could have been me’ is there. We could be the next target. And when it’s you, what are you going to do? Are you going to run and hide? Or are you going to be able to protect yourself? Protect your family? I didn’t want a gun; I’m not a gun person. But this world has made me get one. Getting one for my wife next.”

The foundation said 40 percent of the overall gun sales in 2020 were to first-time gun purchasers. Black gun owners, old and new, say the rise is a byproduct primarily of a heightened fear they could be targeted like those in Buffalo or at Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015, when nine Black church members were killed by a white supremacist.

To that point, anti-Black hate crimes rose nearly 40 percent in 2020, the latest year available, according to FBI statistics. There were 2,755 reported incidents targeting Black people in the U.S. that year, the most besieged racial group by a large margin.

Two weeks after the Jan. 6, 2021, riot on the Capitol in Washington, Destiny Hawkins, a divorced mother of one who lives near Atlanta, waited in line to purchase her first gun, a Glock 43. “It wasn’t the gun I wanted because their selection was so low; people were buying guns like crazy,” she said……

This increased interest in firearms delights Philip Smith, who started the National African American Gun Association in 2015. A human resources executive in Atlanta, Smith said he owns “about 30” weapons, including the lethal AR-15-style rifles used in the Buffalo mass shooting and the Uvalde elementary school massacre in Texas on May 24.

The increased number of Black gun ownership represents “an awakening,” Smith said. “It’s a value-add to their family household, as opposed to, let’s say, 10 years ago or six years ago. This is a movement in a certain direction, and I think it’s a good direction.”

His organization has 48,000 members nationwide, he said, and has gained more than 1,000 or more each month since 2020. It has nearly 107,000 followers on Facebook.

Sure, there are differing opinions about possession in this piece, but it’s clear that Black Americans are exercising their Second Amendment rights which is a good thing. Ideally, everyone should. Ideally, every household should have a firearm.

Whether the reasoning is a stalker, Antifa, terrorism, a spike in crime, and yes—a crazy white nationalist shooting up a market, you have the right to own a firearm in this country and use it for self-defense. That’s what is so great about the Bill of Rights. They’re all connected. They’re all equally important with regards to upholding the other amendments. There is no graduated scale here; only liberals think that way. There’s no cafeteria support for the Bill of Rights either. It’s either you support them or don’t. There’s no filleting of the first ten amendments. The notion that the Second Amendment is for white Americans only is dead. The notion that the Second Amendment was meant to maintain white supremacy was never real, but it’s obviously not an old white man’s game anymore. Women and minorities are all packing heat. Americans of all stripes are buying guns.

It’s a homemade American apple pie, with a side of 9mm I guess. That’s fine. What we need to worry about is Democrats and Republicans now working to set the foundation that could strip those rights down the line.


Washington, D.C. – So-called “fact checkers” and Big Tech inadvertently validated Gun Owners of America’s concerns while targeting a tweet as disinformation for censorship.

Immediately following passage of the “Untraceable Firearms” section of H.R. 7910, Gun Owners of America tweeted that the bill would “criminalize disassembling, cleaning, and re-assembling your gun without a firearm manufacturer’s license.”

Despite labeling the tweet “false,” the Associated Press’ source presumes Gun Owners of America’s interpretation might be valid, acknowledges that the bill’s language is “confusing and ambiguous,” and instead claims that no one is likely to “ever be charged under this statute.”

The Supreme Court usually declares such laws “void for vagueness” under the 5th Amendment, but that hardly makes policy analyses of unconstitutionally vague legislation untrue!

In fact, GOA was merely pointing out that the definition of a “ghost gun” was so vague that it included many unserialized parts on guns in circulation today, like a slide on a handgun or an upper receiver on a rifle or shotgun.

With “assembling” a “ghost gun” criminalized by H.R. 7910, gun owners would no longer be able to disassemble their firearms, clean them, and “assembl[e]” them back into “a functional firearm” if even one unserialized part meets the new definition of a “ghost gun.” The fact-checkers claim that this only applies to manufacturers, but the bill states “it shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture…a ghost gun.”

That is why all of the Associated Press’ sources lean heavily on the qualifier “serialized.”

For example, the “AP’S ASSESSMENT” emphasized that the ban didn’t apply to “firearms [with] serial numbers” and a Giffords gun control activist emphasized that the law wouldn’t affect “a firearm that is serialized.”  Again, they must have intentionally skipped over the other portion of the same bill that changes the current definition of parts that would be subject to serialization or otherwise be classified as “ghost guns.”  Our research indicates that several parts of most modern firearms would meet this new definition (see examples mentioned above).

Therefore, if most guns today are made up of multiple unserialized “ghost gun” parts, as the bill proposes, then you won’t be able to clean your gun without violating the law unless you have a firearm manufacturer’s license.

Big picture: these anti-gun Democrats didn’t even do their own research, because when ATF tried the same definition change last year, GOA and our activists fought back, and ATF later acknowledged and backtracked [Page 24727] this change.


Maher: The Times buried the Kavanaugh assassination story because he’s a conservative

“They just wear their bias on their sleeves,” he says here of the paper, “and if it’s not part of something that feeds our narrative, f— it, we bury it.”

I’m sticking with my bet that Joe Rogan ends up fully red-pilled before Maher does. But I admit, clips like this make me wonder.

Apologies for the odd French-language embedded tweet but it’s the only one I could find with the full exchange between him and his guests.

His point is true beyond a shadow of a doubt and has been for a long time. It’s a neat follow-up to yesterday’s post about media gatekeeping, in fact. Partisan media aggressively filters the news it covers to shield its audience from information that might shake their faith in “the team.” But big media filters too, even when it feels obliged to pay some attention to major developments that disfavor their own side. A gunman showing up outside Sonia Sotomayor’s home would be big news, illustrating a right-wing “climate of hate.” Whereas a gunman showing up outside Brett Kavanaugh’s home is a page-20 curio about a random lunatic.

Katrina Trinko remembers how the Gabby Giffords shooting, perpetrated by a genuine random lunatic, was immediately and egregiously coopted by the media as an indictment of tea-party agitation against Democrats. But the supreme example of the double standard will forever be the attempt by an ardent Bernie-loving progressive to mass-murder Republican congressmen on a baseball field in 2017, news that would have been treated as a national trauma on the order of a major terrorist attack had the partisan roles been reversed. As it is, the story fizzled after a few days and probably would have fizzled sooner if not for the subplot of Steve Scalise fighting for his life in the hospital. Trinko:

[W]hen it comes to political violence in the United States today, here’s a maxim you can always rely on: If the victim or likely victim is on the right, the perpetrator is simply a lone wolf. But if the victim or likely victim is on the left, the perpetrator was fueled by dangerous rhetoric…

Sure, the justices have been given some additional security. But where is the outrage from top liberal lawmakers and activists? Where are the calls for people to remember that at the end of the day, no matter how vehemently we disagree on certain policies, we are all Americans who should be working together to resolve our differences?…

Here’s the reality: Corporate media and liberal lawmakers probably aren’t going to rush to highlight the horrific assassination attempt on Kavanaugh. They know that moderates will be horrified to discover how commonplace it has become for Supreme Court justices to face protests at home. (Notice how little coverage the corporate media has given to these protests, despite the fact that they are publicly announced ahead of time.) And they don’t want to risk alienating the extremists on their own side by focusing on this.

Left-wing agitators understand that they operate free of scrutiny from major media. It’s why the same group that doxxed the Court’s conservative members last month felt no compunction about advertising a new protest at Amy Coney Barrett’s home even after the news broke about a threat to Kavanaugh.


Because they’re of the left, by definition they can’t be part of a “climate of hate” that places anyone at risk. If anyone takes a shot at Barrett, the takeaway will be nothing more profound that that there are some crazy people in America. It’s the progressive version of the strategy some righties engage in after mass shootings, complaining about poor treatment for mental health in order to steer the debate away from gun policies favored by Republicans. When your side is on the political hot seat, you can’t go wrong changing the subject to the unfathomable nuances of a murderer’s mental illness.

In lieu of an exit question, read Jonah Goldberg today on a glaring example of politically motivated gatekeeping by major conservative media. Or read this, about Trump’s “free speech” platform allegedly refusing to allow certain topics to be broached. Taken together with the Times’s inexcusable downplaying of the Kavanaugh story, they help explain why the GOP is in the state that it is. Conservatives justifiably distrust major media due to its biases, they place their trust in partisan media instead, and then partisan media grossly abuses that trust by distorting or outright suppressing information that conservatives should have.

If any of the January 6 Commission’s hearings are again scheduled to take place in prime time, it’s entirely possible that the networks will take a “hard pass” next time:

The Real Reason Why Fox Isn’t Airing the J6 Show Trial (and Why CNN and MSNBC Must).


The dirty little secret that Bump and others of his ilk refuse to admit is that Fox, CNN, and MSNBC are all partisan networks. Every one of them. Anyone who can’t see that is being willfully ignorant or outright lying. CNN and MSNBC want the Democrats and their leftist ideology to prevail, and Fox wants the same for conservative ideals. Yet left-wing media outlets like the Washington Post, CNN, and MSNBC continually perpetuate the myth that they are pure as the newly fallen snow and would never, ever, EVER stand for biased news, all the while laughing at their dwindling number of viewers who fall for the ruse………………

Take out “The” and  “of ‘assault weapons’” and it would still be right.

The Reality of ‘Assault Weapons’ is Far Too Boring and Inconvenient for the Media.

We’re hearing a lot of claims and counter-claims about modern sporting rifles right now. While these “modern” guns are more than half a century old, honest gun owners still buy and use them every day. Occasionally, criminals use them as well, but that’s rare. About one-out-of-eight gun owners have a modern sporting rifle today. And as we’d expect, rifles are used in armed defense situations about an eighth of the time.

Semi-automatic, magazine-fed rifles were introduced to the civilian market here in the US in 1905. The US military adopted them about three decades later for use in World War II.

The civilian version of the modern sporting rifle, the AR-15, was introduced in 1956 so it has been with us for over six decades. In addition to its low recoil and plastic stock, the AR platform’s real innovation is its modularity. The AR can be adjusted to fit people of almost any stature in seconds, which is why it’s so popular. It’s the gateway rifle, the volksgun. I think that is why the democrats want it banned.

Here are two recent news stories that involve the use of a modern sporting rifle . . .

Homeowner with an AR stops two home invaders
It was mid-morning when a homeowner in Brownsboro, Texas heard the sounds of breaking glass coming from inside his home. The homeowner grabbed his AR rifle and went to see what was happening. The homeowner saw two strangers in his house. The defender told the intruders not to move. The second intruder, a female accomplice, ran away. The defender let her go and called 911.

Police arrested the male intruder. The homeowner pointed out the broken glass near his front door. Police arrested and searched the neighborhood for the second robber.

The defender was not charged with a crime.

The homeowner never pulled the trigger as he defended himself. That’s the usual outcome and happens in over 80 percent of defensive gun uses. There are exceptions, of course.

Woman with concealed carry license stops felon with an AR
A woman with a concealed carry permit was attending a graduation/birthday party at an apartment complex in Charleston, West Virginia. The party had spilled out into the parking lot with about 40 people at the celebration. At about 10 at night, a man drove through the parking lot and people shouted for him to slow down.

The driver took offense and came back a half hour later. He climbed into the back seat of his car and started shooting at the crowd with an AR rifle. The woman shot back several times, stopping the attacker in what would have been a mass shooting. No one else was injured.

She called 911 and remained at the scene. Emergency medical services declared the shooter dead from multiple gunshot wounds. The attacker was a convicted felon with a long criminal record. Police are investigating how he got his firearm.

Gun control laws don’t stop criminals from acquiring and using guns. They never have. But there is more we can learn from these two news accounts. AR rifles don’t turn honest homeowners into enraged murderers and they don’t make criminals into unstoppable killers. Modern sporting rifles are actually mundane. And as we’d expect, our neighbors only use lethal force as a last resort.

The reality is, however, that honest reporting about ordinary citizens defending themselves doesn’t make much money for the mainstream news media. They find it more clickworthy to say that a particular piece of steel, plastic and aluminum is horribly frightening and unusually deadly. Apparently that’s the only thing that keeps us watching through the commercials.

Here’s another take on the moronic crap-for-brains CBS article about Japanese gun control laws. And an interesting statistic

Why comparing gun violence here to Japan is stupid

Japan and the United States don’t have a lot in common. Culturally, we’re quite different, though not necessarily incompatible. After all, while legions of Americans consume bits of Japanese culture as if it were the greatest thing ever, other legions in Japan do the same thing with American culture.

But there are profound differences between the United States and Japan.

You wouldn’t really know that if you saw this story going on about their low rates of gun homicides.

As the U.S. gun control debate intensifies, some Americans are looking overseas for ideas on how to prevent mass shootings. Japan has one of the lowest rates of gun violence in the world. There were more than four firearm homicides in the U.S. per 100,000 people during 2019, compared to almost zero in Japan.

As CBS News senior foreign correspondent Elizabeth Palmer reports, Japan’s strict laws on private gun ownership have surprising origins in the United States. She met Raphael, a well-known Japanese YouTuber who decided to take skeet shooting lessons. Despite being ex-military, he had to jump through all the same hoops that any Japanese civilian must clear to get a gun license.

There’s mandatory training. You have to pass a written exam, plus a physical and mental health evaluation. Even then, the police will go and ask your family and friends whether you have any violent tendencies.

The point, of course, is very clear. Japan good, America bad. (The article later goes on to point out the irony in the fact that their gun laws are the result of American occupation following World War II.)

However, for all of Palmer’s questions, she never bothered to dig beyond the surface level.

Japan’s total homicide rate is 0.3 per 100,000 people. That’s for all weapons, and yes, that is incredibly low by anyone’s standard. It’s easy to see why some would look to Japan and try to see what they’re doing in hopes of replicating it here.

If our gun homicide rate were only 0.3 per 100,000, that would probably be a rate we could live with, right?

Except, our non-gun homicide rate is 1.6 per 100,000. That’s more than [5] times greater than Japan’s total rate.

In other words, whatever is making Japan so relatively safe has little or nothing to do with their gun laws. After all, the Japanese government can’t ban knives, hammers, sticks, or body parts–all of which are used to kill plenty of people here in the United States.

Instead, whatever has created such a low homicide rate is likely something that has nothing to do with weapon restrictions and more to do with culture or, at least, some other regulation.

Unfortunately, that’s beyond the modern media to delve into. That’s a question they never bother to think to ask because they’re apparently conditioned to not think of homicide as anything other than a gun issue.

The thing is, though, if you managed to make all guns go away overnight from every hand in the country, we’d still have a higher homicide rather than Japan–at least five times higher, though I suspect it would increase since you have to assume a large percentage of those who kill with guns would simply shift to another weapon.

So yeah, Palmer skimmed the surface and never dug any deeper, which is par for the course in this day and age.

Observation O’ The Day
“Our ‘elites’ are now promoting the kind of history one would impose on a conquered nation, to break its people’s spirit.”

Common Sense? CBS Urges U.S. Adopt Japan’s Occupation-Era Gun Control

On Monday’s CBS Mornings, the network continued their series globetrotting for gun control laws. This time they left Europe and jetted over to Japan where senior foreign correspondent (and friend to the Iranian regime) Elizabeth Palmer touted their oppressive system where a citizen could wait a year or longer to get a gun license as authorities prod their lives and a gun shop owners need to get permission to buy ammo. All imposed on them during the post-WWII occupation.

So much for “common sense” gun laws.

“As the U.S. gun-control debate intensifies, some Americans are looking overseas for ideas on how to prevent mass shootings. Japan has one of the lowest rates of gun violence in the world,” co-host Nate Burleson announced at the top of the segment. “Seems like it’s about time we adopt some of those laws,” he pushed at the end.

Hanging out with Japanese YouTuber Raphael at a skeet shooting range, Palmer praised the “mandatory training” citizen had to go through, in addition to a “written exam, a physical and a mental health evaluation, and even then the police can go and ask your family and friends whether you’ve got any violent tendencies.”

“It took me a year,” Raphael told her. She also noted, “the police had even interviewed his wife.”

She also touted how Japanese citizens were only allowed to buy firearms from three categories and the ridiculous fact that gun store owners needed permission to restock ammunition:

He’s proud of the buck he shot in northern Japan with a rifle, one of only three types of guns a civilian can own. Air guns are also allowed, he said, as shotguns, but that’s it.

I’ve heard that there’s very strict control on ammunition, as well. I see you have some rounds here in the cabinet.

“Yes,” he tells me. “When a gun owner runs out he needs police authorization to buy more.”

“Does he think the law goes too far? Not a bit. Like most Japanese, he supports it as the price for almost zero gun violence,” she boasted.

Palmer was absolutely giddy to note that the reason Japan had such strict gun control laws was because of the United States. “And how’s this for ironic? Japan owes its strict gun laws to America,” she mocked. “When the U.S. occupied Japan after World War II it disarmed the country.”

She even threw in a soundbite from an old documentary where the narrator proclaimed: “To the scrap heap went the guns.” Palmer conveniently omitted the part where the U.S. also banned Japan from having a military.

“Americans shaped the legislation that took firearms out of the hands of civilians, and to this day, that means getting hurt or killed by a gun in Japan is an extremely long shot,” she jabbed as she wrapped up the report.

Palmer is essentially praising the American confiscation of firearms for there to be a smoother occupation and pacification of a citizenry, the exact opposite of what the founders intended. And given the fact that the Democratic Roosevelt administration put Japanese-American citizens in internment camps, perhaps looking to that era for guidance is ill-advised.

NY Times gets it right: polls showing support for gun control doesn’t mean the votes are there

How many times have you seen a news article talking about how most people support gun control? I know I’ve seen it a ton over the years. The media and politicians latch onto poll numbers as if they’re sacrosanct, telling us this proves the public supports them.

Then the election rolls around and gun control doesn’t seem to make a blip on the radar.

Over at the New York Times, they decided to delve into just why that is.

It’s one of the most puzzling questions for Democrats in American politics: Why is the political system so unresponsive to gun violence? Expanded background checks routinely receive more than 80 percent or 90 percent support in polling. Yet gun control legislation usually gets stymied in Washington and Republicans never seem to pay a political price for their opposition.

There have been countless explanations offered about why political reality seems so at odds with the polling, including the power of the gun lobby; the importance of single-issue voters; and the outsize influence of rural states in the Senate.

But there’s another possibility, one that might be the most sobering of all for gun control supporters: Their problem could also be the voters, not just politicians or special interests.

Oh, blaming the voters, right?

Not really.

You see, the argument being made isn’t that the voters are somehow wrong, but that issue polling is, well, useless.

Continue reading “”